[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - No only valid, but right on the mark, most excellent, bull's eye! Couldn't be clearer.[/quote]

Look, I know that you don't want to admit that Atheism is a religious belief, but, it most definitely is, at least when it comes to the Constitution, so, we cannot have the government endorsing Atheism. That is what is at issue here, is it not? You wish to force your religion on the rest of us.

[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - No, it's a belief about religion[/quote]

Nope, it is a belief about the existence of a deity, just like all other religions.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - I do think that these numbers will decrease though. That's the trend. The lack of brainwashing passes from generation to generation. It's rare for someone to understand the world and then return to the myths and fables. Less rare the other way around.[/quote]

As we learn more about the universe, it will become self evident that there is more to reality than that to which the Atheist subscribes. The existence of a deity will become more difficult to deny. The nature of that deity will be, as it is now, a matter of debate.

[quote][b]Ben Had[/b] - There won't be any non-atheist in the future.[/quote]

As it has always been, there will be times of faith and times when faith falters. There will NEVER be a time when there are no people of faith as long as there are people on the Earth. Actually, I believe as we learn more about the universe, it is likely that faith will grow.

[quote][b]Politically Correct Name[/b] - Bald is a hair color.[/quote]

Wasn't valid the first time you used it.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - I am no member of any group. I don't pay any dues. I don't attend a service for atheists. Just because I don't believe in your supernatural supposition does not mean I adhere to a religion.[/quote]

There are Christians who are not members of any Church, or, or pay any dues, and don't attend a service for Christians. Just because you BELIEVE that there is no God, means you adhere to a religious belief..

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - What a convoluted bit of logic you employ. Similar to the belief in an all powerful being in the sky[/quote]

The logic is sound and you know it. You fear the obvious, because once it is realized that Atheism is a religion, it to cannot be endorsed by government. Now tell the truth, that is the real reason you do not want to accept the fact that
Atheism is a religious belief.

[quote][b]Green[/b] - Oh, the irony! Nathan Deal staged this little stunt to be known as "the Governor who put Bibles back in govt." and instead what he is known for is "The Governor who opened the door for Atheist publications in govt."
uh...lol, Guvnah![/quote]

The door was always open. Has been since 1786.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Now who do we worship? And who do I tithe too? Seen any atheist churches anywhere?[/quote]

As the existence or non existence of a deity can not be proven or disproven, Atheism is a religious belief.

As to athiest churches lets read the first line of the story:

"American Atheists President David Silverman says his group is just waiting for an answer from the state on what the best process is to donate several books, including one titled “Why I Am An Atheist.”

There, you have your chuch, I assume that to be a member, there are dues involved and they even included the name of one of their dogmatic books, so, there you are.

Well, Atheism is a religion, so, have at it.

"Obama's Pieces"

It appears that Bengazzi was a matter of not wanting to have the narative of the administration challenged so close to an election, so, a lie was cooked up to cover the administration's butt.

The IRS and DOJ scandles are dictatorial in nature. There is no way around that. These were not oversteps, these were crimes. The constant excuses, by those in leadership, of ignorance can mean only one of two things. The leaders, Clinton, Obama, Holder, etc, are either lying or stupid.

[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - The Tea Party in and of itself is supposed to be closer to a libertarian idea, not necessarily a conservative one. Politicians make it into something else entirely.[/quote]

Very true. I was hopeful during the "proto" Tea Party days, that it would grow as a purely libertarian group and thumb it's nose at both the Republicans and Democrats, but, several Republicans tried to ride the wave and gummed up the works. Sad really.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Many of your comments are knee-jerk responses without credible sources that back up your contentions. Mine are sourced.[/quote]

I have never had much faith is "sources" especially when it comes to this subject. To me all of the sources about dangers of guns are pointless because we are speaking of a right. A right cannot be taken by opinion polls. It cannot be taken by law. I know, I know, the SCOTUS has said that gun control is constitutional, well, they are wrong, at least when it comes to access to firearms for the lawful.

I could put out sources that contradict your sources. What would be the point? Remember what Samuel Clemmons said. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Point being, stats can be and are twisted to meet the preconceptions of whom ever is putting out the stats. So, your sources have an agenda and will interpret the data accordingly, as would any source that I could provide.

As to any law that gives violent felons their gun rights back. If you want to push for the repeal of that law, I would be right there with you.

"Forcing residents to buy guns they do not want or need won't make the city of Nelson or its people any safer, and only serves to increase gun sales and gun industry profits," Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center said in a statement.

Well, yes, it would make the residents safer, but, I am still not in favor of the law. Telling people they have to buy a gun is just as bad as telling them that they can't.

This is to all of the gun grabbers out there. We live in, what is supposed to be, a free society. With freedom, comes risk and responsibility. We could make the people safer if we had total state control. They could tell us what to eat, where to work, what to do for fun, where to live, They could take our cars, outlaw booze, outlaw "dangerous" sports, force us to exercise, force us to be good little boys and girls. Who would want to live in such a society?

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - A criminal can legally get a gun because a dealer or private individual sold him a gun because many gun laws have loopholes that allow sales without criminal background checks.[/quote]

But it is illegal for a criminal to buy a gun. Background check or no background check, it is still illegal.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.[/quote]

Well, you can atribute that to the fact that crimes, that do not happen, are usually not reported. Look at Clarke and surounding counties. Home invasion robberies are more common in clarke county, where there are fewer homes with guns, but, in surounding counties where there are more homes with guns, there are fewer.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - An average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined[/quote]

Don't care. If someone is stupid enough to committ suicide, that is their choice .

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. [/quote]

So is having a bathtub, car, powertools, ladder, stove, electrical appliances, etc.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.[/quote]

That, I see, as an education problem. Children should be taught, as I was, about how damaging a gun can be. They should not just be told, "Don't touch".

Look, there are 80+ million gun owners in the US owning some 300 milllion plus guns. A very tiny number of those people ever commit murder a very tiny portion of those guns are acedently fired. Cars, by far, cause more deaths.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - I own guns but I'm not against reasonable gun control laws that would make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, legally or illegally. [/quote]

There is no such thing as a criminal obtaining a gun legally. Felons are already restricted from buying guns. Show me a bill that goes after criminals and not the law abiding, and I will be all over it.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - I also don't go through life in fear of being confronted by a criminal with a gun.[/quote]

I don't either

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - And my guns are not available so family members or friends have easy access to them in a fit of anger or depression. Nor are they easily accessible to criminals.[/quote]

I would not be around friends or family who I thought had the least chance of, in a fit of anger or depression, grabbing my guns and using them. I do not fear guns. It wouldn't bother me if my neighbor had 50 "assault weapons" and 100,000 rounds of ammo to go with them.

@avenger: It would seem that it is the cities in these states that drive the gun violence. Could it not be the lack of or overbearing laws, but, demographics of those cities that have more to do with gun violence than does the legality of guns? After all, criminals can get guns no matter what.
As far as I know, there are restrictions on shooting people in all of the states. The violence is a culture problem, not a hardware problem.

As you point out. It matters not if this state or that state bans guns. It wouldn't matter if the US banned guns. If criminals want them, they will get them. (look at Mexico) All laws do is stop those who care about the law. The stupid "war on drugs" should be a prime example as to how restrictions do little to stop any problem. If there is a market, there will be a supply.

Knowing the fact that restrictive gun laws do nothing but disarm the law abiding, I will continue to fight all forms of gun control for non criminals.

[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] -
That's a tag line I've heard from many a politician, including Obama. When he called for common sense regulation of the banking and financial services industry in order to prevent another financial meltdown and bailout or worse another depression, his bought-and-paid-for critics clamored it was more expansion of gubbermint on the fast track to socialism. Therein lies the problem, i.e. what constitutes common sense regulation. Everyone will tell you their version of it.
[/quote]

I will tell you my version. Common sense regulation can be written in one page or less. There is no stack of regulations that are taller than I am that can claim to be "common sense", Any person with an 8th grade education should be able to read the regulation and know what is legal. The only reason for thousands of pages of regulation is to build in wiggle room for the friends of those who write the regulation.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - Chicago's guns come from surrounding areas in the state or Indiana. Firearms travel from areas with loose gun laws to those with tight laws.[/quote]

So, what you are saying here is that the law abiding will follow gun laws, leaving them defenseless from the criminals, who do not?

If this is not the case, why is it not a major blood bath in those areas with "loose" gun laws?

But, but, what about the inspectors? Did she have a permit? What of zoning laws? Did the people, who helped, have the proper licenses. Did she have a perk test done? Oh the humanity!!!!

[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] - How do you control that without more gubbermint regulation, which I know libertarians despise as opposed to free market choices?[/quote]

Libertarians see the need for some, simple, government regulation. Those regulations should ONLY be to protect the life/liberty of other people. For example, a ban on transgenic human clones would serve to protect the life/liberty of, not only the general population, but, also the life/liberty of what ever creation that would have resulted. This would be a simple, common sense regulation. Kind of a "line in the sand" that one may not cross.

[quote][b]JulietsButterfly[/b] - It landed near Sparta, GA in a very swampy area. http://www.chaseinspaceproject.blogspot.com/ They're going back later today to try again[/quote]

I own land near there. Very cool!!!

How about we just fire EVERYBODY at the IRS, shut the doors, set the building on fire, then salt the earth.

[quote][b]hjfedrick[/b] - farmerga issues about tax laws and high criminal laws are two different things, don't confuse the two in order to prove a point.[/quote]

This had nothing to do with tax law. This was a case of intimidation, pure and simple. Obama himself, along with many other Democrats have stated as much. They also have said that it was highly illegal and intolerable.

[quote][b]hjfedrick[/b] - And stop saying that you don't care what groups are targeted. You do care. As long as it is not groups that you support that are targeted, the rest can be be single out every time. You have said that time after time again on your previous post, or have you forgotten.[/quote]

I have never said anything of the type. Case in point, I have no love for the AP, but, I am angered by the unconstitutional confiscation of their private papers. The IRS intimidation and the Justice Department targeting of the AP are obvious examples of tyranny.

[quote][b]woofie11[/b] - Works for me. But,..................the next Jehovah's Witness that comes to my door will now get their AZZ kicked....
I think that's fair......[/quote]

My Mother, who is a devout Baptist, invites the JW's into her home when they show up. They sit down and talk for hours about their different views. I think it puts them off of their game, because they almost never visit her anymore.